Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Revising with Williams

The 2005-1007 EMU Undergraduate Catalog includes the following passage under the heading “Re-enrollment”:

Former EMU students desiring to re-enroll at EMU after an absence of two years should make application in the Office of Records and Registration, 303Pierce Hall, at least one month prior to the first day of classes. The applicant should complete the application and return it to the same office. A printable re-enrollment form is available on the Admissions web site (www.emich.edu/public/admissions/admissions.html). Students may also apply on the web. (11)

I revised this passage according to rules in Joseph Williams’ Style to the following:

Former EMU students who wish to re-enroll after an absence of two years must apply at least one month prior to the first day of classes. Applications are submitted to the Office of Records and Registration, 303 Pierce Hall, and can be picked up from that office or printed from the Admissions web site (www.emich.edu/public/admissions/admissions.html). Applications can also be submitted on the web.

Williams writes: “A series of clear sentences can still be confusing if we fail to design them to fit their context, to reflect a consistent point of view, to emphasize our most important ideas” (45). The problem he describes is one of cohesion. The original passage is difficult to read because it is not cohesive. It is not cohesive, specifically, because the writer does not follow the principle Williams calls “managing the flow of information.” To manage the flow of information, the writer must highlight important concepts by putting old information at the beginning of a sentence and new information at the end (48). In the original passage, the student is the old information because the heading “Re-enrollment” suggests it is relevant to a student who wishes to re-enroll. The first sentence does follow Williams’ advice because it mentions the student, the old information, first then it mentions “application” as if it is the new information. The problem arises in the second sentence when “the applicant” is again the character when the first sentence suggests the passage will be about application. To revise, I made the passage about application throughout as well as consistently balancing new and old information to match the context.

No comments: